Ken: Well evidently there are a lot of Christians who don’t always follow Christ’s teachings in how to treat unbelievers. If you don’t see this, perhaps its because you are not an Atheist.

Ken, did you not read what I acknowledged directly above your comment about that reality. Most of those people not obeying Christ teachings on how to treat people aren't Christians, no matter that they might self-identify as such. Many are merely political / cultural, so-called "Christians."

In that case you claim to be a true Christian and all else 'false' Christians. That is a potential very dangerous statement.

How is it dangerous? Lots of people claim to be all sorts of things, doesn't make it so.

"I am the only true believer, everyone else is 'fake' ".
You 'damn' a lot of people with that. Now I don't think that is your purpose, but that kind of statements differentiates between true and false.

It is tragic, however you are saying that I damn people with that statement? Not at all, and I think the opposite -- that if I were to go along with self-identifying Christians who I believed were not, that such would actually be damning and likely damaging to many more people.

Listen, if someone is going to cross the road when a car is coming, then if I were to just go along with their belief that no car is coming that would in fact damn them to being hit. And if it were a parent with kids, I've equally damned their kids to likely being hit also.

So then, the best I can do is to try correct their belief with truth. Of course, yelling out "a car is coming" might be enough to make them look again and stop crossing. Belief in Christ however, who is said to be God visiting in the flesh some 2000 years ago, isn't so easy to anyone's rational mind to believe.

Justhuman wrote:Different Christians claim they are the true Christians. So, which one is the right one? There can be only one.

Well then, you have your work cut out for you. Some people claim the world is flat too, who is right? You decide. God gave you the opportunity to choose and decide for yourself what to believe. At least, YOU play a large role being the main actor in your own life. On the other hand, not everyone believes that we are even responsible in a final sense over our own decisions and actions (and such generally isn't the position of those who do believe God exists).

Justhuman wrote:Since you mentioned the hatred from some atheists towards Christians, maybe your claim is at some basis of that. "God exists, and I am right. Period." There is no room for 'alternatives'.

I didn't mention hatred from atheists? I get along with many who aren't Christian, even if we disagree. I don't take their belief that I believe in a "fairy-God" as being "hatred" any more than the my belief that some people who claim to be Christian aren't really Christian. In fact, while frustration and hatred for belief in God might penetrate through at times, I'd think many Atheists actually want me to give up belief in God because they think such is more liberating and freeing, AND as such it'd be better for myself if I were Atheist.

Justhuman wrote:It is like the the atheist claims "I am right, and you (as a theist) are wrong. Period."
While the agnost claims "I probably am right, and you possibly might be wrong."

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

That said, as a Christian, I'm not Agnostic at all, but claim to know God exists, believe it is true, and there are many positive arguments for belief in God and even Christ. Again, I'll repeat here, we're each our own judge and jury and have the freedom to think and decide for ourselves. The best I can then do to either a Christian I don't believe is Christian, or an Atheist who rejects God's existence, is to try warn them of their error and anyone who listens to such errors so that they won't actually end up damned. For I truly believe Christ is the cure, the answer, to many evils in our world which currently go unchecked (but it won't always be that way, there will be an end and reckoning that will damn people for any and all evil committed).

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

Ken: This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

No it's not! The distinction between one claiming atheism and agnosticism is that the agnostic says that he just doesn't know or that the issue of God is unknowable because they don't have adequate knowledge that would determine one way or another. The issue isn't whether one totally without relevant knowledge about God can't take a stand - the issue is whether the person's stated views would qualify him as an agnostic or not.

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

K

While technically one doesn't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion, don't you think someone's opinion should be based on some kind of knowledge of the subject on which one has an opinion?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

Ken: This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

No it's not! The distinction between one claiming atheism and agnosticism is that the agnostic says that he just doesn't know or that the issue of God is unknowable because they don't have adequate knowledge that would determine one way
or another. The issue isn't whether one totally without relevant knowledge about God can't take a stand - the issue is whether the person's stated views would qualify him as an agnostic or not.

But a person could have belief concerning the issue (perhaps this belief is the result of taking someone else’s word for it, etc.) thus choose a side based on belief; but is convinced it is impossible to truly know due to the nature of God. Such a person would still be agnostic; don’t cha think?

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

K

While technically one doesn't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion, don't you think someone's opinion should be based on some kind of knowledge of the subject on which one has an opinion?

Over the years, I've seen quite a few atheist and agnostics on the forum relentlessly argue their reasons why they don't believe in God, or don't believe in an afterlife. Seems they doth protest too much! I really don't get why anyone who believes there is no God truly cares beyond a certain, rather casual point. Those I've seen here typically don't seem terribly upset by Christianity or see Christians as a big threat, nor tend to view Christians as religious simpletons, etc. But I'm surprised at their passion for arguing, over very long periods, over their belief that there is no God. Why does that seem to matter so much to them? Why really care what Believers think?

1. They may have come from Christian backgrounds themselves

2. If they are wrong, they know there's a hell. Wouldn't you try to have a solid argument why hell doesn't exist, if you didn't believe?

3. They think Christians are intellectually lazy and therefore they get pleasure from trying to de-convert them or they feel better arguing against the "lesser" beleif.

Mind you, these are just my personal guesses.

And to add:
There are some people who are truth-searchers and think Christianity is not based on truth.
(And it happens they become Christians)

Apostle Paul is one example.
(Me is another. Maybe B.W. another)

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

True Agnositicism is being without knowledge either way ('a-' meaning without, and 'gnostic' meaning knowledge). It is often the position that "Atheists" today try to re-badge Atheism under, however even in Flew's original paper, The Presumption of Atheism, he states that the Atheism he is arguing for is a rather weak form that makes no positive claim, it is like Agnositicism when it comes to God beliefs. Yet, the moment you take a side, voice an opinion one way or another, even in the slightest, such is the moment you take a positive stance and leave Agnosticism.

This sounds like a contradiction. You don't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion.

K

While technically one doesn't need knowledge to take a side or voice an opinion, don't you think someone's opinion should be based on some kind of knowledge of the subject on which one has an opinion?

I agree! But it doesn't always turn out that way.

An opinion, by definition, doesn't necessarily need to be based on knowledge or facts. But, when one makes a positive claim, the onus is on that person, to back up that claim.

That's what the link was getting at.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Over the years, I've seen quite a few atheist and agnostics on the forum relentlessly argue their reasons why they don't believe in God, or don't believe in an afterlife. Seems they doth protest too much! I really don't get why anyone who believes there is no God truly cares beyond a certain, rather casual point. Those I've seen here typically don't seem terribly upset by Christianity or see Christians as a big threat, nor tend to view Christians as religious simpletons, etc. But I'm surprised at their passion for arguing, over very long periods, over their belief that there is no God. Why does that seem to matter so much to them? Why really care what Believers think?

1. They may have come from Christian backgrounds themselves

2. If they are wrong, they know there's a hell. Wouldn't you try to have a solid argument why hell doesn't exist, if you didn't believe?

3. They think Christians are intellectually lazy and therefore they get pleasure from trying to de-convert them or they feel better arguing against the "lesser" beleif.

Mind you, these are just my personal guesses.

And to add:
There are some people who are truth-searchers and think Christianity is not based on truth.
(And it happens they become Christians)

I am the atheist and I never argue. To believe or not is a private matter and I always respect another person's choice. As you have experienced, but the opposite I have done from the believers. People were vehemently trying to prove me that I am wrong. But it is just a choice. I respect all religions, sexuality, political points of view until I am not bothered with that and especially until somebody try to say that I am doing a mistake.

I am the atheist and I never argue. To believe or not is a private matter and I always respect another person's choice. As you have experienced, but the opposite I have done from the believers. People were vehemently trying to prove me that I am wrong. But it is just a choice. I respect all religions, sexuality, political points of view until I am not bothered with that and especially until somebody try to say that I am doing a mistake.

Hi jarviguy,

first of all, welcome.

Well, if people are searching for the truth, should not we all come to one conclusion one day?

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

JG - there's nothing wrong with arguing or debating, as long as it is done respectfully. It's how we learn and challenge each other. It's how we can examine whatever holds up and what does not.

Jarviguy: To believe or not is a private matter and I always respect another person's choice.

Yes, one can indeed to quiet about what they believe and keep it to themselves. But from a Christian standpoint, we are commanded to reach others for Christ with the "GOOD News." As we believe and assert to know what/WHO will set one free and that will bring one committing themselves to Christ peace now and FOREVER (in this life and eternally in the next), we cannot with good conscience be silent about what we know - not if we truly love others. And why would any Christian not want to share with unbelievers what we have and that God offers them as well? So, Christians share because we care!

Jarviguy: People were vehemently trying to prove me that I am wrong. But it is just a choice.

JG, it is important to realize that whatever truth exists - whether in the past or the present - that the reality of that truth actually existing is entirely independent of what one thinks or feels about it! I have heard and read that man actually landed and walked on the moon in 1969. Now, there are people who deny that - and they will give various reasons why - typically per things they've heard and read. Or maybe they don't trust the government and merely feel that the moon landing was a giant hoax that isn't true. But whether or not man truly landed and walked on the moon has a reality of fact and history. So, that event either happened or it did not. And no matter how one feels about it - which is indeed a choice - will not alter what actually happened in time and history. So, as it actually happened, no amount of one's feelings to the contrary will alter the reality of the historical truth that it actually happened. And so, REALITY and TRUTH are NOT merely "just a choice." Sure, one can choose to believe the moon explorations by man never occurred - but that cannot alter the actual reality that it did indeed occur. And this is the same with God/Christ.

So, God either exists or He does not. His character, capabilities and past actions are either realities, or they are not. What one THINKS or FEELS about God cannot alter whatever the reality is. IF He does NOT exist, then desiring and feeling that He exists would not make it so. And the reverse is obviously true as well. Fortunately, there is a vast abundance of powerful evidences to show God does exist and Who He truly is (Jesus!).

Jarviguy: I respect all religions, sexuality, political points of view until I am not bothered with that and especially until somebody try to say that I am doing a mistake.

If I am making a terrible mistake that has very serious consequences - but don't realize it - I would hope that finding out the truth that I am making a such a mistake (with great consequences) would be very important to me - as what I don't currently know could be very dangerous to me. There are many things I don't know that might be dangerous. So, I want to always have an open mind to learn where danger lies - even if I am unaware or in denial that such a danger exists. And if there are amazing and wonderful things that I don't currently know about, they I certainly want to not be closed minded to the point that I am blind to their existence. Being wrong - even sincerely so - can be a terrible thing. And being closed-minded to discovering whatever truth can have horrible consequences.

I may sound provocative, but there are a lot of different people. Look back at the Crusade? Did they share because they care?

And what about all wars that had happened on religious grounds? I'm not saying you are the one who would take a gun and shoot non-believers, but it happens again and again. In my atheistic opinion, religion is dangerous, especially the Muslim religion. You share because you care, they kill because they believe. Have you ever heard a guy who was screaming "In the name of Atheism" while he was torturing somebody?
I am happy to have a conversation with such a people like you, who substantiates his point of view without aggressive moves and waiting for a wise response.